Sunday, September 02, 2007

deleted from wikipedia!

I have been judged to have failed the notability criterion, and so my entry is gone from Wikipedia. Read the neurosisogenic non-debate (because of its unaninmity) about my non-notability here.

Update: So we're clear, I'm not upset or anything about this. I can think of a few dozen people in sociology, at least, who deserve Wikipedia entries more than me and don't have them. This does not mean that it isn't neurosis-and-various-other-emotions provoking to watch anonymous people with no clear connection to your discipline debate your notability.

(And, now, due to troll-baiting, I also can't resist pointing out that: given the affinity for textbooks in their stated "notability" criteria, and that the CDA-Stata book and software gets used a lot as a graduate-level textbook and has been very successful by any standard for such books, I am over the bar on Criterion #3. I hate that I just wrote and am going to post that sentence.)

22 comments:

Brayden said...

That is really strange. Some guy named Siva1979, whose main contributions to Wikipedia are articles on astronomy and religion, is qualified to say that you haven't published a "significant and well known academic work"?

Until now, I had no idea a wikipedia notability test existed, but given my reading of WP:PROF, you meet almost all of the criteria (and it says you only have to meet one to count as notable). Weird.

Anonymous said...

"Not notable and entry seems to be nothing more than self-promotion for his web site 144.90.123.189"

that's harsh...

we will bring you back...

Dan Myers said...

A couple of thoughts.

(1) An editor at Wikipedia saved me from being deleted on the basis of notability. We talked about it a lot and she said that you can save yourself from being deleted on the basis of FORMATTING, rather than content. She did a lot of work rearranging my entry and I haven't heard any complaints since.

(2) Add a picture. She said items with pictures rarely get tagged for deletion.

(3) Have some references for some of the material. Even if they are lame references (as in my case), they provided some face legitimacy.

I used to write articles for Wikipedia, but just about everything I've ever written has been deleted. Mainly because I didn't have time to format things they way they wanted. Somebody tags you, you don't see it and thus don't fight back, and you're gone. It's not worth the effort.

eszter said...

I remember when Crooked Timber members were undergoing "review" on Wikipedia. It was strange, to say the least. The idea that people who know nothing about your area of expertise can be so critical about whether you have made any notable contributions is just bizarre. It definitely made me look at Wikipedia differently and Dan's comment just reinforces that.

Anonymous said...

Reading that wiki link reminds me of the spongeworthy discussion on Seinfeld--i.e., a Seinfeldian level of silliness and superficiality. Sounds like some truly nonnotable folks have nothing better to do than try to bring other people down. This kind of stuff happens when you're willing to put yourself out there like you are. I can't judge your academic credentials, but I enjoy reading your blog, so I think you're notable on that alone!

Anonymous said...

Man, that's supa dupa cold! "Notability" is news. Jeremy, do you think you are generating more than your share of frenemies cause of this blogging thing?

Anonymous said...

Troll baiting indeed. If a mild reality posting gets you cracking, then it's a good thing (even if -- like a sundial -- you only register the 'sonny'). May your new office be the site of good scholarship.

Anonymous said...

It seems to bother you. But think -- how many people actually saw the Wiki listing? How many will know it's gone -- or if it comes back? And have you changed one way or another?

Anonymous said...

Why not make it your goal to increase your sociology scholarship and life goals in your chosen field of study, rather than manipulate the formatting as Dan suggests?

Are you living your life for the show, or do the showy trappings come from how you're choosing to live your life? Also, you never solicited this bit of advice, but it's come to my mind more than a handful of times after reading about your single life and some of the photos you post:

Until you make some room for another person than you in your interests and obsessions, you will probably stay alone. If you can get past you though, you're much more likely to meet someone worthy of yourself. But first, the boy must become a man himself. Then maybe you'll one day have a child of your own and can treat him or her the way you do your inner child now. Do with this unsolicited advice what you choose, but it is meant in truth from this observation angle anyway.

Jude said...

Oh, this is bullshit. They can have extended entries on fucking comic books, but you don't make the cut?

Their priorities are, as you would say, bothered.

rps said...

Clearly, it's time again to turn off anonymous commenting.

Anonymous said...

WHY? We are all so enthralled with that last one!

Anonymous said...

Comment only with love and good intention, that is the goal some are shooting at. What, somebody had to say it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:54 PM (again). I guess this:

"Do with this unsolicited advice what you choose, but it is meant in truth from this observation angle anyway."

answers my question about the rapid growth of JF frenemies. Is this part of general blogging phenomenon?

Back in the day of the usenet, discussion groups had a distinct life-course ending with the trolls coming out from under the bridge en mass and venting their pent-up hostilities toward central participants in the discussion. We'd all pick up our marbles at that point and create another group. Is a JF re-brand in order?

Or maybe there is just something strange about people around sociology. Back in the day the biggest usenet sociology trolls were unreconstructed armchair marxist (any oldtimers remember that keeper-of-the-true-faith who was some sort of computer guy at Columbia? Shouldn't there be a hall of fame of for trolls?) Today the sociology trolls are animated by a much more naked form of envy.

Anonymous said...

(any oldtimers remember that keeper-of-the-true-faith who was some sort of computer guy at Columbia? Shouldn't there be a hall of fame of for trolls?)

i'm sure the techies have one. a quick google search reveals that the person in question is alive and well. he has his own blog and seems to still run some sort of email list(!).

Anonymous said...

7:45 asked:
Is this part of general blogging phenomenon?

It's how you categorize it. The supertroll computer guy referred to is not the same as a longtime reader who makes honest observations fwiw.

The latter is part of "the general blogging phenomenon" as you open yourself up to a wider audience who naturally will come into their observations from different angles than your typical soc buddies, colleagues, family and friends.

Now whether it's something to be deleted when encountered, dismissed or considered is up to the blogger. Throwing all previously unencountered perspectives into the troll pond in a broad lumping ... I don't think that's going to win you any awards, bring about any personal growth, or win you back that wiki entry though. Too much like tinkering with the stats.

Anonymous said...

And 7:45:
I wouldn't let your fears trigger a "rebrand" in any way. That seems silly and overrreacting -- another honest observation.

Anonymous said...

As an Anon commenter, I hope JFW keeps Anon comments on. But, some of this stuff is harsh. Jeremy is, without question, sufficiently accomplished to deserve a "Wiki" entry. It appears that the folks who police such entries are trying to carve out some new bountry-maintaining niche for themselves to justify their own relevance. It's very intellectually arrogant to presume that they could evaluate the merits of someone's work outside of their field of training (if they have one).

Anonymous said...

yet, the idea of a wiki is to have objective observers--from both within and outside of one's area of expertise--(and, yes Jeremy, wiki's are meant to be anonymous) judge the contribution of one's work. So, it is probably unlikely that not a single person within sociology contributed to that discussion--but apparently, just not enough of this blog's readers.
Also, you can 'timewarp' the wiki entry and see that it did in fact include a considerable amount of what wiki-reviewers would consider self-promotion (not saying it was you who wrote it).

Anonymous said...

"Also, you can 'timewarp' the wiki entry and see that it did in fact include a considerable amount of what wiki-reviewers would consider self-promotion (not saying it was you who wrote it)."

Nice try, but it doesn't explain why our hero gets the boot while others - including at least one assistant professor (!?!) who has never published a solo-authored, high-profile journal article - still appear. Looks to me like someone had an axe to grind. I say we put up a new page for Jeremy, one with a photo Meyers proposes!

Ang said...

Not to be a jerk to certain unnamed people, but I was looking at the "List of Sociologists" on wikipedia last night, and there were at least three who had full profiles that made me scratch my head. I mean, fine, if they have profiles, fine. But Jeremy's more accomplished than any of these people.

I think they're older, though. Does that matter?

jeremy said...

1. While the sentiment is certainly appreciated, I don't want to get into comparing myself to other people who have uncontested (or successfully contested) entries.

2. It's self-contradictory to say something is "self-promoting" and to then say "(not saying it was you who wrote it)"

3. Again, I'm not bothered by not having any entry, but I was bothered by the troll who suggested it was ludicrous that I would have an entry.

4. It's silly to say tout the anonymity of Wikipedia's votes for deletion as a virtue and then to assert that it's likely at least one of the people who voted was in sociology, esp. when none had any substantive to say and the entries of those with links aren't connected to sociology.

5. I do not discuss my romantic life on this blog.